PDA

View Full Version : US to use ICBM against Terrorists



platinum786
31 May 06,, 16:06
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking congressional approval for development of a new weapon able to strike distant targets an hour after they are detected, a newspaper reported on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The International Herald Tribune said the weapon would be a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident-2 missile and be part of a president's arsenal when considering a pre-emptive attack.

The report quoted military officials as saying it could be used to hit terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction and other urgent threats.

General James Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said the system would allow U.S. forces to attack targets conventionally and precisely and "limit the collateral damage."

The Pentagon would like the system available in two years, the report said.

But the program has run into resistance from lawmakers concerned it could increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Under the Pentagon plan, both non-nuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident-2 missile would be loaded on the same submarines.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," the newspaper quoted Senate Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed as saying.

"It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear," the Rhode Island Democrat said.

The House Armed Services Committees have asked the Bush administration to develop a plan to minimize the risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060528/pl_nm/arms_usa_weapon_dc

platinum786
31 May 06,, 16:12
That is the most reckless way of taking on terrorists you have come up with.

Moving US submarines armed with ICBM close To China will cause even more issues, people like Iran, India, ~Pakistan will feel a threat from your presence there, this is going to lead to an arms race, you will force people to get ICBM's in return just in case your "proposed uses" change.

Can you imagine the effect of firing a missile from the Indian ocean into say Pakistan, it'd spark a nucelar exchange, both nations would assume the other has fired first out of the cold, nobody is going to call anyone to double check.

platinum786
31 May 06,, 16:16
On top of this your intelligence is a pile of sh!t, lets be frank, when was the last time they actaully found a terorist? They found all the pices to 9-11 right after it occured, not before and they have a tendency to order airstrikes without anyone knowing, like the one on the Pakistani village.

Do you trust the CIA not to launch an ICBM strike into the middle of a desert because they mistook a herd of camels for Al Queda operatives? I don't, the CIA in recent years is a tried and tested failure.

Archer
31 May 06,, 16:55
I'd rather take the CIA over the ISI anyday, at least the CIA is serious about fighting Islamist terror and there are no qualms about their intentions, even if their effectiveness can be quibbled over.

platinum786
31 May 06,, 16:59
boo-hoo...we aren't interested in fighting someone elses war in the same manner we are in fighting ours...don't go off topic.

Officer of Engineers
31 May 06,, 17:17
Plat,

For a moderator of a defense forum, your knowledge sucks.

1) ICBMs are InterContinental Ballastic Missiles. They are stationed in Nevada, NOT on submarines. The missiles tasked to subs are called Submarine Launched Ballastic Missiles.

2) Only 4 powers can launch-on-warning (US, Russia, UK, France) and two of those (UK and France) had to rely on the Americans for world wide warning. Otherwise, they can only look at a specific spot on the globe. Everybody else and that includes Pakistan and India, the best they can do is launch-on-impact and quite frankly, if you can't tell the difference between an HE impact and a nuke impact, then you don't deserve nukes. China might be able to do launch-on-warning IF she starts putting up birds but frankly, she ain't interested.

3) What is Pakistan, India, and Iran going to do? Scream? Not one got the reach to touch the US via conventional nor nuclear means.

4) SSBNs and SSGNs routinely come close to these countries and have even launched hostile actions against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in the case of Afghanistan, over Pak airspace without asking for permission. Not one person in Pakistan knew about it until they watched CNN.

Archer
31 May 06,, 17:19
Plat,

Huh? What is that supposed to mean? My point is simple. Irrespective of what one may claim of the CIAs "intelligence" or lack of, or emotive arguements such as the attack on the Pakistani village- the war on Islamist terror will continue to be fought. And in such a case, the CIA's "heart" is in the right place. That village wouldnt have been attacked if there werent terrorists hiding in it.

ABout off topic, well you brought the above example up, which I feel is not really relevant, so I offered a counterpoint.

Bill
31 May 06,, 17:39
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking congressional approval for development of a new weapon able to strike distant targets an hour after they are detected, a newspaper reported on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The International Herald Tribune said the weapon would be a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident-2 missile and be part of a president's arsenal when considering a pre-emptive attack.

The report quoted military officials as saying it could be used to hit terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction and other urgent threats.

General James Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said the system would allow U.S. forces to attack targets conventionally and precisely and "limit the collateral damage."

The Pentagon would like the system available in two years, the report said.

But the program has run into resistance from lawmakers concerned it could increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Under the Pentagon plan, both non-nuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident-2 missile would be loaded on the same submarines.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," the newspaper quoted Senate Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed as saying.

"It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear," the Rhode Island Democrat said.

The House Armed Services Committees have asked the Bush administration to develop a plan to minimize the risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060528/pl_nm/arms_usa_weapon_dc

Land based Minuteman IIIs would strike me as being more accurate(when Peacekeeper was withdrawn 500 M.ManIII missiles were upgraded with the vastly improved Peacekeeper guidance package), though once in theater, the sub based Trident D-5 'conventional' would get on target much faster.

Actual weapons effectiveness is ENTIRELY driven by RV mass and impact velocity.

OBSERVE BELOW:


Hmm, just figured out the KE of a unitary solid penetrator warhead equipped Peacekeeper ICBM.

Peacekeeper maximum throw weight: 3900Kg(8710lb)
Penetrator mass: 3603.6Kg(8000lbs)
Peacekeeper maximum impact velocity: 6kps(6000m/s)
Kinetic Energy release on impact: 64.86 MILLION Megajoules or 15.5 Kilotons.
Estimated CEP without terminal homing/guidance: 500 meters

Figures gleaned from the below scientific article:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/icbm.htm

Bill
31 May 06,, 17:48
boo-hoo...we aren't interested in fighting someone elses war in the same manner we are in fighting ours...don't go off topic.

Why do you fail to realize it's YOUR war more than ours?

It's YOUR country where these dumbasssed madrassas KooLAiD drinkin' mullahs are running around in the millions

So YES, this is VERY MUCH a reflection on YOUR inability to police YOUR own little shitty corner of the world.

THAT my friend, is the reality at play here.

Bill
31 May 06,, 17:52
2) Only 4 powers can launch-on-warning (US, Russia, UK, France) and two of those (UK and France) had to rely on the Americans for world wide warning. Otherwise, they can only look at a specific spot on the globe. Everybody else and that includes Pakistan and India, the best they can do is launch-on-impact and quite frankly, if you can't tell the difference between an HE impact and a nuke impact, then you don't deserve nukes. China might be able to do launch-on-warning IF she starts putting up birds but frankly, she ain't interested.



No nation on earth has a launch on warning policy, and no nation on earth has EVER had a launch on warning policy that i am aware of.

Stuart Slade has recently tore someone's face off wrt this very issue in another forum, and he was very clear............LOW has NEVER been a serious policy.........it's simply FAR too dangerous. In fact, according to him, it's beyond reckless.

Link:

http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm9.showMes sage?topicID=2293.topic

Officer of Engineers
31 May 06,, 18:00
I may have the terminology wrong but I was under the strong impression that we were not going to wait until after impact on our silos and I thought the same of the Soviets.

Puressence
31 May 06,, 18:06
Sad to say, Platinum786's attitude is very typical of his countrymen and even the Pakistani elite. Never a day passes before a columnist lament about how America is forcing Pakistan to stop tens of thousands of illiterate and belligerent and heavily armed tribals on a holy mission trying to start a war with a neighbouring country and within 200 miles of the capital Islamabad itself, WHILE in the same article itself wonder why no one is diverting serious money to invest in Pakistan. OR calling America unfair for insisting that trade disputes be settled in American courts WHILE blasting Pakistani judges for being VIP-conscious, corrupt and tardy.

It is a mad mad land. They seem to think that investors will just suck up its losses from the periodic rioting, which always targets poor Colonel Sanders, tribals killing foreigners if they can get them and spreading their anti-Western hate, and a government that is destabilizing its neighbours.

HistoricalDavid
31 May 06,, 18:15
Pakistan will feel a threat from your presence there, this is going to lead to an arms race, you will force people to get ICBM's in return just in case your "proposed uses" change.

Pakistan develop accurate ICBMs?

I'd like to see that.

Bill
31 May 06,, 18:22
I may have the terminology wrong but I was under the strong impression that we were not going to wait until after impact on our silos and I thought the same of the Soviets.

That's incorrect sir(no disprespect intended at all- of course).

If you read that link i supplied Stuart Slade(among others) explains the issue in some detail.

US policy has always been LOI(Launch on Impact), ie, 100% verification of nuclear attack.

Officer of Engineers
31 May 06,, 18:39
That's incorrect sir(no disprespect intended at all- of course).

When an NCM tells me to listen, it's time to listen. It ain't disrespect if you're correcting an error ... or stupidity.


If you read that link i supplied Stuart Slade(among others) explains the issue in some detail.

Trying but just can't seem to locate the exact post on the matter.


US policy has always been LOI(Launch on Impact), ie, 100% verification of nuclear attack.

I stand corrected on this matter ... and I know better than to ask anymore.

Bill
31 May 06,, 18:49
Trying but just can't seem to locate the exact post on the matter.

Sir you can click any post in that thread then up in the top-left of your screen it'll say "Collapse/expand" replies.

Hit that, it should turn into a WAB style format for ya.

Glad i could help, and i did not mean to 'correct' you, just making sure you had the right info at your disposal. THAT is an NCO's job. ;)

gunnut
31 May 06,, 19:50
On top of this your intelligence is a pile of sh!t,

Takes one to know one.


lets be frank, when was the last time they actaully found a terorist?

You are so important that CIA is obligated to tell you what they know, when they know, who they know...why?


They found all the pices to 9-11 right after it occured, not before and they have a tendency to order airstrikes without anyone knowing, like the one on the Pakistani village.

There you go, we found some terrorists there.


Do you trust the CIA not to launch an ICBM strike into the middle of a desert because they mistook a herd of camels for Al Queda operatives? I don't, the CIA in recent years is a tried and tested failure.

CIA doesn't order ICBM strikes, as far as I know. This could change if a drone operated by CIA spots a high value target and needs to have it eliminated within an hour. A phone call to the White House. The president gives a go. CIA sends the proper command to the sub commander in the field. Boom. Dead terrorists.

Archer
31 May 06,, 21:15
Why do you fail to realize it's YOUR war more than ours?

It's YOUR country where these dumbasssed madrassas KooLAiD drinkin' mullahs are running around in the millions

So YES, this is VERY MUCH a reflection on YOUR inability to police YOUR own little shitty corner of the world.

THAT my friend, is the reality at play here.

To be perfectly honest they have no problem with these dumbassed jihadis, as long as they are free to attack and kill Indians, non Talib Afghanis and anyone who does not obey Pakistani diktat. So, it is indeed your war, not theirs, and it is our war and not theirs. It will never be, you have arm twisted them into a dog and pony show, but even that only goes on for somewhile.

Bill
01 Jun 06,, 03:13
To be perfectly honest they have no problem with these dumbassed jihadis, as long as they are free to attack and kill Indians, non Talib Afghanis and anyone who does not obey Pakistani diktat. So, it is indeed your war, not theirs, and it is our war and not theirs. It will never be, you have arm twisted them into a dog and pony show, but even that only goes on for somewhile.

Some would suggest you are correct.

platinum786
01 Jun 06,, 10:39
Why do you fail to realize it's YOUR war more than ours?

It's YOUR country where these dumbasssed madrassas KooLAiD drinkin' mullahs are running around in the millions

So YES, this is VERY MUCH a reflection on YOUR inability to police YOUR own little shitty corner of the world.

THAT my friend, is the reality at play here.

well of course it's our war, it wasn't a war though until u guys flushed these rats out of Afghanistan, my comment is simply saying that the governemnt of Pakistan has other people to contend with asides from al queda, like the Indians who are plotting and executing terrorist attacks in our country. so the ISI is bound to apear pre-occupied, however despite that we have captured more of these people than the rest of the world.

OoE; I'm aware of what an IBCM is, but you can SLBM's , that is what i was reffering to, i just happened to copy/paste yahoo's article. It reffered to trident, which is an SLBM isn't it, according to FAS it is anyway...

You say that most countries like India or Pakistan couldn't respond, but an increased an armed Us presence in the region might escalate the situation to make people be prepared.

I mean using long range missiles to take out 3 guys playing cards in a tent is just reckless, especially on the preformance of US intelligence in the region so far.

platinum786
01 Jun 06,, 10:43
Just to further clarifiy my position so that we are not dragged further and further off topic....all i'm saying is that the ISI of Pakistan have other things to contend with, such as Indian aggresion towards us which will be proven next month in a report given to the indian government, thus may apear not to be interested in the WoT which is primarily a war on US interests and other western countries.

There is a difference between what indian members might apear to see and what the ground realities and proven results are.

HistoricalDavid
01 Jun 06,, 10:51
You say that most countries like India or Pakistan couldn't respond, but an increased an armed Us presence in the region might escalate the situation to make people be prepared.

...Considering how India and Pakistan are always at each others throats in a particularly nuclear manner, then why haven't they been prepared so far?

That's right - they don't have the necessary technology. The actual nuclear threat from each other is considerably greater than from the United States, no matter which way you'd like to twist it, and would have meant the appearance of early-warning systems as soon as either country developed the necessary technology.


I mean using long range missiles to take out 3 guys playing cards in a tent is just reckless, especially on the preformance of US intelligence in the region so far.

You think they're gonna waste a $50 million + missile which is not around in great quantity on 3 guys on uncertain intelligence? UAVs seem to be swarming around that region of a world, a couple of Hellfires and the problem is sorted much more cheaply. These SLBM ideas are to give the absolute fastest response time in emergencies.

Unless one of those three guys happens to be Osama Bin Laden, in which case an SLBM would be worth it.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jun 06,, 13:48
You say that most countries like India or Pakistan couldn't respond, but an increased an armed Us presence in the region might escalate the situation to make people be prepared.

Prepare for what? You've lost that arms race already.


I mean using long range missiles to take out 3 guys playing cards in a tent is just reckless, especially on the preformance of US intelligence in the region so far.

You don't get it, do? The US can afford to waste a long range missile on 3 guys playing cards in a tent. And there's nothing you can do to stop them.

platinum786
01 Jun 06,, 13:55
Prepare for what? You've lost that arms race already.



You don't get it, do? The US can afford to waste a long range missile on 3 guys playing cards in a tent. And there's nothing you can do to stop them.

thats what u think right now, but if you start violating peoples territory people will devleop the capability to strike back and will strike back.

Why do you think you aren't going after the koreans' because they can strike back...so you wont risk it.

Btw HystericalDave, India and Pakistan don't need ICBM to attack each other as they are enxt door to each other.....duh!

TopHatter
01 Jun 06,, 14:35
Why do you think you aren't going after the koreans' because they can strike back...so you wont risk it.
Well that, and also because the North Koreans aren't known for driving airliners into office buildings.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jun 06,, 14:40
thats what u think right now, but if you start violating peoples territory people will devleop the capability to strike back and will strike back.

Give me a break! Developing ICBMs can't exactly be done in secret.


Why do you think you aren't going after the koreans' because they can strike back...so you wont risk it.

They can only hit our interests in South Korea. They can't hit the US.

The worst problem ain't that we can take the NKs out. It's what to do with the North Koreans once we've taken them out. The analogy is simple. Imagine by tomorrow, all of Afghanistan just become Pakistani territory and governance and that the Afghans can now travel anywhere in Pakistan and are demanding welfare dollars and work dollars from Islamabad.

Parihaka
01 Jun 06,, 14:41
Funny, when I read this thread I thought "well all power to them" Plat on the other hand seems to think he's a prime target.....

HistoricalDavid
01 Jun 06,, 15:34
The worst problem ain't that we can take the NKs out. It's what to do with the North Koreans once we've taken them out. The analogy is simple. Imagine by tomorrow, all of Afghanistan just become Pakistani territory and governance and that the Afghans can now travel anywhere in Pakistan and are demanding welfare dollars and work dollars from Islamabad.

Hang on, what about the NK artillery pointed at Seoul?


Btw HystericalDave,

Says the guy who created this thread!


India and Pakistan don't need ICBM to attack each other as they are enxt door to each other.....duh!

...The technology to detect SLBMs being launched from the Indian Ocean wouldn't exactly be much different from the technology required to detect the short and medium range ballistic missiles you people would lob at each other.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jun 06,, 15:39
Hang on, what about the NK artillery pointed at Seoul?

They have enough guns to either blast their through the DMZ or to make life impossible in Seoul. They can do one or the other. They cannot do both. I personally think that they would blast their way through the DMZ and then attack Seoul once their armies are through.

HistoricalDavid
01 Jun 06,, 15:42
Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Puressence
01 Jun 06,, 15:44
I believe that some form of segregation will happen for some years after the Koreas unite, if they ever do. It is probably best to protect both peoples against each other, the culture shock would be worse than East/West Germany, and there would be regime remnants to hunt and probably some fanatics who want to go out in a blaze of glory in the South.

And should the North Korean regime collapse suddenly, would anyone be surprised if China drove its forces 50 miles into the country as a buffer zone against both refugees and Allied forces before they arrive? After a few decades, the Han would probably become majority there and it would be like they had always owned it.

troung
01 Jun 06,, 15:50
well of course it's our war, it wasn't a war though until u guys flushed these rats out of Afghanistan, my comment is simply saying that the governemnt of Pakistan has other people to contend with asides from al queda, like the Indians who are plotting and executing terrorist attacks in our country. so the ISI is bound to apear pre-occupied, however despite that we have captured more of these people than the rest of the world.

Well there was a war and the rats were supported by Pakistan. We gave the rats back to Pakistan... or better yet they ran to a place where for some reason they feel safer...


thats what u think right now, but if you start violating peoples territory people will devleop the capability to strike back and will strike back.

Sort of an empty threat. And there might be a reason Mush does nothing when we cross the border a mix of buying him off and what we could do to him and Pakistan if opposed.

Plat but don't worry the missiles would not hit you... they are not aimed at England.

Puressence
01 Jun 06,, 16:32
Quite telling really, Platinum486 is comparing and associating Pakistan to North Korea. What a glorious role model Pakistan has.

Bill
01 Jun 06,, 16:36
well of course it's our war, it wasn't a war though until u guys flushed these rats out of Afghanistan


Oh please. There were thousands and thousands of these tribal yokels in Pakistans tribal areas BEFORE 9-11.

You know that, i know that, the ISI knows that, but NOTHING was done about that.


my comment is simply saying that the governemnt of Pakistan has other people to contend with asides from al queda, like the Indians who are plotting and executing terrorist attacks in our country. so the ISI is bound to apear pre-occupied, however despite that we have captured more of these people than the rest of the world.

I guess you have caught a lot of them, your fine country has the highest concentration of 'these people' of any nation on earth.


I mean using long range missiles to take out 3 guys playing cards in a tent is just reckless, especially on the preformance of US intelligence in the region so far.

US intelligence is a lot better than pakistani, and you folks have nukes too. Do you hear me EVER biitch about your nukes or how you plan to use them?

No. No you do not.

gilgamesh
01 Jun 06,, 17:16
They have enough guns to either blast their through the DMZ or to make life impossible in Seoul. They can do one or the other. They cannot do both. I personally think that they would blast their way through the DMZ and then attack Seoul once their armies are through.

I am not sure how reliable this article(slightly dated) is, but it looks pretty interesting. Probably already posted on this forum.

http://www.kimsoft.com/2003/nk-war-han.htm

astralis
01 Jun 06,, 18:30
no, m21, the problem is worse.


well of course it's our war, it wasn't a war though until u guys flushed these rats out of Afghanistan, my comment is simply saying that the governemnt of Pakistan has other people to contend with asides from al queda, like the Indians who are plotting and executing terrorist attacks in our country. so the ISI is bound to apear pre-occupied, however despite that we have captured more of these people than the rest of the world.

the ISI was WORKING with the rats prior to 9-11. and there is some indication that some parts of the ISI -still- works with them.

Archer
01 Jun 06,, 23:28
Just to further clarifiy my position so that we are not dragged further and further off topic....all i'm saying is that the ISI of Pakistan have other things to contend with, such as Indian aggresion towards us which will be proven next month in a report given to the indian government, thus may apear not to be interested in the WoT which is primarily a war on US interests and other western countries.

There is a difference between what indian members might apear to see and what the ground realities and proven results are.

Yup. All those fellers in Afghanistan, India, etc attacking civilians are all Indian agents. Brilliant.

The Lashkar e Toiba, the Hizbul Mujahideen, the Jamaat e Islami are all Indian, not Pakistani.

And yes, the WOT is primarily "western interests" vs the poor natives.

Anything else?

Archer
01 Jun 06,, 23:29
Funny, when I read this thread I thought "well all power to them" Plat on the other hand seems to think he's a prime target.....


But why, why would he think that? Funny that.

Archer
01 Jun 06,, 23:37
Some would suggest you are correct.

If anyone here has served in Afghanistan recently, it'd be interesting finding out what they make of the ISI.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/24/opinion/edsaikal.php

Several ISI officers, and their supporters in the Pakistani government and radical Islamic circles, are said to have been deeply disgruntled with the "loss" of Afghanistan when the Taliban regime fell. These forces believe that sooner or later the coalition troops will leave, opening the way for Afghanistan's future to be determined by its neighbors.

dalem
02 Jun 06,, 03:46
Buddy of mine just got back from there. I'll see if there's anything that he can tell me. Sometimes he can when he comes back from places, sometimes he can't. I get the impression that this time is a "he can't".

-dale

Confed999
02 Jun 06,, 04:03
I mean using long range missiles to take out 3 guys playing cards in a tent is just reckless, especially on the preformance of US intelligence in the region so far.
If your intel was any good, we wouldn't have to do it...

Bill
02 Jun 06,, 05:11
no, m21, the problem is worse.



the ISI was WORKING with the rats prior to 9-11. and there is some indication that some parts of the ISI -still- works with them.

I know. The whole thing is a sick joke.

platinum786
02 Jun 06,, 09:25
But why, why would he think that? Funny that.

I can think that because new zealand is full of non muslim white people, to be a terrorist you have to be brown and a muslim....also you cannot be living in an oil rich country which is currently providing the US with oil.

platinum786
02 Jun 06,, 09:31
Also our intelignece is only interested in threats made to our country, such as the Indians nad now thier little terroirist afghan puppets who are attacking our afghan border, that is our priority that is what our intelligence focuses on and excels in capturing, someone who is planning to bomb a western city who happens to transit thru Pakistan is a secondary concern.

The only thing concerning me about your nuclear build up in the region is the real reason for it, you don't use SLBM's tot ake out terrorists, that's a decoy for something more sinister, we all know it.

HistoricalDavid
02 Jun 06,, 11:40
The only thing concerning me about your nuclear build up in the region is the real reason for it,

The Americans (and the Russians) can already blanket the area with nuclear warheads anyway, and have been able to do so probably since the '70s, since the range of their systems is so long, and neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Afghanistan nor Iran, could do anything to defend themselves from such an attack, nor develop the capability in the near future. The Americans (nor the Russians) don't need a 'build-up'.

So that point is invalid.


you don't use SLBM's tot ake out terrorists,

If a super-quick flight time is needed, or if the target is heavily, heavily hardened, then SLBMs are just another option on the table.

So that point is invalid.


that's a decoy for something more sinister, we all know it.

Quite presumptious, that.

Explain how it is a meaningfully useful decoy, and how it advances their goals/interests in the region meaningfully.

I for one, don't 'know it'.

Lilo
02 Jun 06,, 11:53
Also our intelignece is only interested in threats made to our country, such as the Indians nad now thier little terroirist afghan puppets who are attacking our afghan border, that is our priority that is what our intelligence focuses on and excels in capturing
So what was us intelligence doing before 9/11 when taliban was in control of ur western borders and when there is no 'purported' indian "terrorist" :tongue: threat to contend with..?


someone who is planning to bomb a western city who happens to transit thru Pakistan is a secondary concern.
its not 'transit' buddy, its 'originate'.Pakistan in general and waziristan in particular are places from which islamic terrorism draws its ideology,logistic support and recuirts.

The only thing concerning me about your nuclear build up in the region is the real reason for it, you don't use SLBM's tot ake out terrorists, that's a decoy for something more sinister, we all know it.

Yes US need not use SLBM's to take out ordinary terrorists, but as these terrorists are supported and shielded by a powerful rougue faction of ur military-intelligence setup and a large % of ur population ,which ultimately amounts to as state sponsored terrorism - then it is justified.


I for one, don't 'know it'.
me too...

Archer
02 Jun 06,, 12:00
I can think that because new zealand is full of non muslim white people, to be a terrorist you have to be brown and a muslim....also you cannot be living in an oil rich country which is currently providing the US with oil.

Yup. Brown people. Funny that only you seem to be worked up about it. Could it be that New Zealand also does not have jihadis who kill in the name of Islam, could that be a reason, why they are not in the crosshairs?

Archer
02 Jun 06,, 12:06
Also our intelignece is only interested in threats made to our country, such as the Indians nad now thier little terroirist afghan puppets who are attacking our afghan border, that is our priority that is what our intelligence focuses on and excels in capturing, someone who is planning to bomb a western city who happens to transit thru Pakistan is a secondary concern.

The only thing concerning me about your nuclear build up in the region is the real reason for it, you don't use SLBM's tot ake out terrorists, that's a decoy for something more sinister, we all know it.

Yup Indians are sponsoring terrorist Afghan puppets. Wow.

Lets see what a Pakistani journalist says:

http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=39007&catid=11

Jehadis still alive and kicking


Despite much-touted public claims by President General Pervez Musharraf to have changed the country’s direction by uprooting its network of extremists, a cursory glance at the activities of the outlawed militant and sectarian groups and their leaders shows that most of them are back in business and operating freely in the country.

For those who need a ready reckoning of Musharraf’s performance, a glance at his record on handling the jehadi kingpins will prove instructive. When the President of Pakistan banned six of the country’s top jehadi and sectarian groups in two phases – on January 5, 2002 and November 14, 2003 – he declared that no militant or sectarian organization would be allowed to indulge in terrorism to further its cause. Yet, none of the key jehadi leaders has been either arrested or prosecuted on terrorism charges.

After the initial crackdown, the four major jehadi organizations — the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkatul Mujahideen, and Hizbul Mujahideen — resurfaced and regrouped to run their respective networks with different names and identities. The respective leaders of these organizations, Prof Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, Maulana Masood Azhar, Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil, and Pir Syed Salahuddin, remain at large, and the pattern of treatment being meted out to them by the military-led so-called civilian administration suggests they are being kept on a leash, ready to wage a controlled jehad in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

These militants largely depend on Pakistan for training, logistics, arms, ammunition and, most of all, sanctuary, a dependence that has been exploited by Pakistan’s intelligence establishment. Not only does its intelligence establishment decide which jehadi group will play what role in fuelling the Kashmir insurgency, but it also launches new militant outfits at regular intervals to ensure that none of them ever get so big or powerful that they start posing a threat to their creators.

Musharraf’s claims of having taken concrete measures to clip the wings of jehadi groups and reform their religious seminaries across Pakistan were nothing more than rhetoric, proved in the recent past when his own administration admitted that three out of the four London suicide bombers had been visiting madrassahs in the provincial capitals of Sindh and Punjab in November 2004, before returning to England in February 2005, only to carry out deadly bombings there. Since then, Musharraf’s policy of enlightened moderation has come under sharp criticism, both from within and outside Pakistan.

After the 9/11 terror attacks, the four key jehadi leaders, who were becoming increasingly vocal in their condemnation of Musharraf’s policy of ‘slavery to the Americans’, were placed under house arrest in their respective home towns in the Punjab province. A countrywide crackdown was launched against activists of the jehadi organizations, who were furious over General Musharraf’s U-turn on support for jehad in Afghanistan. Groaning under US pressure, Islamabad had to temporarily stop cross-border infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir, which eventually reduced violence in the Valley.

As things stand, one can notice that most of the militant leaders and their respective groups, which were made to adopt a ‘lie-low and wait-and-see’ policy in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, are once again on the loose. Some of these groups have assumed new identities: Jaish-e-Mohammad has been renamed as Khudamul Islam, and Harkatul Mujahideen is called Jamiatul Ansar. Almost all the major jehadi organisations have re-launched campaigns to recruit volunteers, utilising websites etc., to promote the jehadi culture and attract youngsters. The most effective instruments of these groups to freely propagate jehad are their publications (Ghazwa, Majalla, Zarb-e-Taiba, Shamsheer, Zarb-e-Momin, etc) which together boast a circulation of millions and are distributed free of cost.

In his televised address to the nation on July 21, 2005, a few hours after the failed London bombings, Musharraf renewed his January 2002 commitment to root out the evils of extremism and terrorism from the country. There was nothing new in his speech. The administrative measures for combating terrorism and extremism that he announced were no different from his earlier assurances. Indeed, in his televised interaction with journalists on July 25, 2005, Musharraf declared that the fresh crackdown would not be like the last one, where people were picked up and held for 10-15 days and then released; an open admission that the earlier crackdowns he had ordered were just an eyewash. This raised a basic question — if the previous declarations were not followed up with effective action, how would the regime do a better job this time round?

While addressing a crowded press conference in Rawalpindi on July 29, 2005, Musharraf confronted such scepticism, conceding that he had not taken a firm action against the militants since 2002 because he did not have a free hand at that time as a result of an unstable economy, confrontation with India over Kashmir, and insufficient international support for his presidency. He claimed he was now in a much stronger position to campaign against religious militants. “I am in a totally different environment. Today, I am very strong. We need to act against the bigwigs of all the extremist organizations. We are not going as fast as I would like to go,” the General said.

In response to specific questions on the difference between the crackdowns in 2002 and now, Musharraf said the world and media should not judge the performance of his government through the eyes of the past. Replying to a Western journalist’s query why he had not been serious in his earlier attempts to curb militancy, General Musharraf retorted, “You have to be realistic and take cognizance of the ground situation. By taking stringent action against Islamic fundamentalists, I would have risked the prospect of a million Taliban on the streets of Pakistan.”

To judge the general through the eyes of the present, it is useful to note that in the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks, he had once again directed the law enforcement agencies to deal with extremist organisations and the threat of terrorism with their full might. His first declaration was that none of the sectarian and militant groups banned on account of terrorism and extremism would be allowed to operate under any name and those poisoning young minds would be arrested and tried under Anti-Terrorism Laws. By saying so, Musharraf actually repeated his resolve for the third time since 9/11, but without doing anything practical to implement the same.

As far as his declaration to arrest those poisoning young minds is concerned, not even a single key jehadi leader was arrested after the 7/7 attacks in the so-called anti-jehadi crackdown. This included, among others, two ‘Most Wanted’ militants of the CBI who had allegedly orchestrated major acts of terrorism in India: Prof Hafiz Mohammad Saeed of the Jamaatul Daawa, and Pir Syed Salahuddin of the Hizbul Mujahideen. Similarly, the American Federal Bureau of Investigation wants to interrogate two more jehadi leaders including the Harkatul Mujahideen (now Jamiatul Ansaar) leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (now Khudamul Islam) chief Maulana Masood Azhar.

As things stand, Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, Fazlur Rehman Khalil and Syed Salahuddin are on the loose and most of the extremist infrastructure their groups used to maintain before 9/11 to wage jehad in Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir remains intact. The kid glove approach of the Pakistani establishment towards the leaders of the banned jehadi outfits can be gauged from the fact that the Jamaatul Daawa led by Hafiz Saeed was allowed to hold a 25,000 strong public meeting at the Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore on March 18, 2006.

The second instance is that of Syed Salahuddin, the leader of Hizbul Mujahideen who was shown on television on March 26, 2006, addressing an international conference organised by the Jamaat-e-Islami in Peshawar and attended by a leading Hamas figure, Sheikh Muhammad Sayam and top leaders of the MMA.

The third instance is that of a proscribed Sunni sectarian organization – Sipah-e-Sahaba (Army of Companions of Prophet Mohammad PBUH) or its reincarnation Millat-i-Islamia, which has been allowed to resume activities in the country. The SSP is one of the five outfits banned by General Musharraf on January 12, 2002. This pro-Taliban organisation whose leadership eulogizes Osama bin Laden, has been allegedly involved in bloody violence. Thousands of the SSP activists took out a rally in Islamabad on April 7, 2006 and distributed pamphlets preaching jehad and hatred against Shias. One of the organisers even thanked the government for allowing the rally.
Analysts give varying explanations why the Musharraf-led administration keeps hobnobbing with these jehadi and sectarian groups.

However, the root cause of the problem seems to be the jehadi orientation of the Pakistani military leadership and its continued alliance with fundamentalists. As the head of the Pakistan Army — an institution credited with crafting and carrying Pakistan’s pro-jehad policy in Afghanistan — few know more about what goes on in Pakistan than General Musharraf himself. And the fact remains that despite his repeated rhetoric to promote enlightened moderation in the country, Jehad Fi Sabilillah (Jehad in the name of Allah Almighty) continues to be the motto of the Pakistan Army.


To sum up, despite enthusiastic applause from the West for the anti-militancy efforts of Pakistan’s ‘visionary’ military ruler, it is evident that much remains to be done on the ground before these efforts actually bear fruit. With changing scenarios all over the world, there has been a change of minds, yet what is required is a change of hearts.

The writer is the former editor of Weekly Independent, currently affiliated with Reuters and the Gulf News

Archer
02 Jun 06,, 12:10
What about this guy? Indian stooge too?

Heck, the left leaning, everythings A-Ok with the Islamic world, Guardian says this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1778443,00.html

Colonel's outburst follows multiple terror attacks
· Afghanistan president says Quetta used as base

Declan Walsh in Kandahar
Friday May 19, 2006

The Guardian


A senior British officer accused Pakistan of allowing the Taliban to use its territory as a "headquarters" for attacks on western troops in Afghanistan as insurgents struck on multiple fronts yesterday.

In one of the worst 24-hour periods since they were ousted from power in 2001, the Taliban launched two suicide bombs, numerous firefights and a massive assault on a village in Helmand province, where 3,300 British soldiers are being deployed. The violence, which started on Wednesday night, caused 105 deaths including 87 Taliban, 15 police, an American civilian and a Canadian woman soldier, according to the highest estimates. British forces were not involved.

Colonel Chris Vernon, chief of staff for southern Afghanistan, said the Taliban leadership was coordinating its campaign from the western Pakistani city of Quetta, near the Afghan border. "The thinking piece of the Taliban is out of Quetta in Pakistan. It's the major headquarters," he told the Guardian. "They use it to run a series of networks in Afghanistan."

The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, echoed these comments by accusing Pakistan of arming the insurgents. "Pakistani intelligence gives military training to people and then sends them to Afghanistan with logistics," the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency quoted him as saying.

And as expected:


The unusually forthright British criticism, reflecting sentiments normally expressed in private by western commanders, drew a furious denial from the Pakistani military.

Whom are these guys kidding, with their mollycoddling of the jihadis directed against India, Afgahnistan, NATO- every darn country in the world. Terrorism central.

Archer
02 Jun 06,, 12:21
Ok brown guy from New Zealand caught in New York. CIA/ NSA/ FBI hypocrisy exposed.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/05/24/story_24-5-2006_pg7_22


NEW YORK: A Pakistani immigrant who claims a paid informant lured him into a phony bomb plot actually did the dirty work himself, picking a busy Manhattan subway station as a target, drawing diagrams and doing reconnaissance, a prosecutor argued.

Shahawar Matin Siraj “did all those things on his own, of his own volition,” Todd Harrison, the assistant US attorney, said on Monday during closing arguments in the man’s trial. Siraj was arrested on the eve of the 2004 Republican National Convention on charges he wanted to attack a subway station in Herald Square, a dense shopping district that includes Macy’s flagship department store.

The jury was expected to begin deliberating on Tuesday after hearing four weeks of testimony. The jurors will have to decide whether the suspect was planning the attack of his own accord or, as the defence argues, was pushed to do it by the police informant. In Monday’s closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that Siraj had become enraged over US policies in the Middle East long before he met the informant in 2003. “He was angry and he wanted to blow something up,” Harrison told jurors in federal court in Brooklyn. “It’s not that complicated.”

White New Zealanders caught in Iraq

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.302071267&par=0

UK captures eight White New Zealanders two of whom travelled to New Zealand before the attacks on the London sub.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aTCUYtXMkyks&refer=uk


May 24 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. police arrested eight people during raids early today aimed at suspects who may be involved in terrorism overseas.

About 500 officers from five departments across England were involved, said Greater Manchester Police, which led the operation, in a statement on its Web site.

Seven of the arrests were in the Manchester area and one in Liverpool, said police, who didn't name the people arrested. Officers are continuing to search several addresses using warrants under the Terrorism Act.

Four British-born suicide bombers killed 52 people and injured about 700 last July 7 in London. A government report on May 11 said British security services have averted three possible terror attacks since then.

Two of the bombers traveled to Pakistan before the bombings and probably met members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, the report said.

More on New Zealanders

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article601317.ece

Another New Zealander caught assisting Hamas!
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200605300912.htm

May I ask why is the truth so hard to face??

Every darn thing points to one country being the epicentre of such training and font of jihad, whilst others flush with oil fund it, but we still have accusations of racism!

HistoricalDavid
02 Jun 06,, 14:30
I can think that because new zealand is full of non muslim white people, to be a terrorist you have to be brown and a muslim....

The United States has considerable beef even with North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and to an extent China.

I think someone's got a persecution complex.

platinum786
02 Jun 06,, 14:49
Yes US need not use SLBM's to take out ordinary terrorists, but as these terrorists are supported and shielded by a powerful rougue faction of ur military-intelligence setup and a large % of ur population ,which ultimately amounts to as state sponsored terrorism - then it is justified.


me too...

it's a pity your government doesn't think the same way :biggrin:

Bill
02 Jun 06,, 14:57
Also our intelignece is only interested in threats made to our country, such as the Indians nad now thier little terroirist afghan puppets who are attacking our afghan border, that is our priority that is what our intelligence focuses on and excels in capturing, someone who is planning to bomb a western city who happens to transit thru Pakistan is a secondary concern.

The only thing concerning me about your nuclear build up in the region is the real reason for it, you don't use SLBM's tot ake out terrorists, that's a decoy for something more sinister, we all know it.

Conventionally armed SLBMs would be quite effective at banging high value assets(be they terrorists or HQ bldgs or bunkers, or whatever else.

BTW, we could have 10 SSBNs sitting 10 miles off your coast, and unless we told you fellows you'd never even know.

Bill
02 Jun 06,, 14:59
but as these terrorists are supported and shielded by a powerful rougue faction of ur military-intelligence setup and a large % of ur population ,which ultimately amounts to as state sponsored terrorism - then it is justified.

That's how i see it. Good post Lilo....welcome aboard.

Bill
02 Jun 06,, 15:00
The United States has considerable beef even with North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and to an extent China.

I think someone's got a persecution complex.

Oh, you know how those silly brown people are... ;)

Archer
02 Jun 06,, 19:34
Oh, you know how those silly brown people are... ;)

Yup its a conspiracy I tell you. Jeez, my skin is light brown, do I count? :tongue: *


*Or is it that only the jihadi brownies need to be concerned?

Lilo
02 Jun 06,, 20:54
Good post Lilo....welcome aboard.

Thanx bro :)

Lilo
02 Jun 06,, 23:00
it's a pity your government doesn't think the same way :biggrin:

Well, ur wrong..
Govt of india knows that the terrorist infrastructure of PAK holds a threat to india's security and is in favour of taking them out using military means,but the nuclear spectre hanging over the subcontinent dictates a more cautious approach.So, for the time being our govt would not take any steps as afore mentioned.
But if pakistan chooses to continue its janus faced approach of 'trying' to eliminate terrorist elements which it doesnt need (like terrorists targeting US or US pro elements in Pak) while retaining the elements which serve to further the intrests of Pak's military rulers(like terrorists directed at india or afghan govt) ,i can assure u that india would deliver a fitting response.

And when the military balance becomes sufficiently sqewed in favour of india(which is inevitable in the next 20-30 years) to neutralise the nuclear delivery systems of pak and if pak is still found meddling in others affairs through its terrorists then u will be answered with the response u deserve(that means bombing of terrorist training camps in POK using ballistic missiles or whatever).

Parihaka
03 Jun 06,, 05:44
I can think that because new zealand is full of non muslim white people, to be a terrorist you have to be brown and a muslim....also you cannot be living in an oil rich country which is currently providing the US with oil.
Well, apart from about 40% of our population being brown of one sort or another which is I think about double the percentage of the UK where you live that just leaves being Muslim. So do you think being Muslim means the US is going to drop an ICBM on your flat in London?

Parihaka
03 Jun 06,, 05:51
Every darn thing points to one country being the epicentre of such training and font of jihad, whilst others flush with oil fund it, but we still have accusations of racism!
Because once upon a time white guys were easy to shut up by claiming racism if you disagreed with what they were saying.
Plat just hasn't caught up yet that no one but Ken Livingston gives a monkeys any more and it no longer works :rolleyes:

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 14:18
Yup its a conspiracy I tell you. Jeez, my skin is light brown, do I count? :tongue: *


*Or is it that only the jihadi brownies need to be concerned?

Nah, can't trust any of you damned darkies. :biggrin:

LOL...but then, ya can't really trust whitey either. They call us blue-eyed devils for a reason. ;)

LOLOLOL... :tongue:

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 14:20
Because once upon a time white guys were easy to shut up by claiming racism if you disagreed with what they were saying.
Plat just hasn't caught up yet that no one but Ken Livingston gives a monkeys any more and it no longer works :rolleyes:

Never really worked on me at all...
But then i'm not a racist. I hate all colors and creeds equally.

"To me you are all equally worthless"
~Senior Drill Instructor Hartman, FMJ

Asim Aquil
03 Jun 06,, 14:45
Plat,

For a moderator of a defense forum, your knowledge sucks.

1) They are stationed in Nevada, NOT on submarines.

A shot from Nevada to the deserts of the middle east... hmmm tell me how accurate would these be? Can they hit a small building 10,000km away?

I sense the use of nuclear warheads as a gradual eventuality that'll follow.


2) Only 4 powers can launch-on-warning (US, Russia, UK, France) and two of those (UK and France) had to rely on the Americans for world wide warning. Otherwise, they can only look at a specific spot on the globe. Everybody else and that includes Pakistan and India, the best they can do is launch-on-impact

A missile flying into Pak won't be detected by radars? A few Shaheens which are already pointed towards India won't be triggered? Why do India and Pak pre-inform each other before each test?


3) What is Pakistan, India, and Iran going to do? Scream? Not one got the reach to touch the US via conventional nor nuclear means.

You do know India and Pakistan are more concerned with each other, they might do something to each other! If the US does introduce ICBMs into the scenario, that'll be the final push needed for India's Agni III and Pakistan's equivalent, as well.


4) SSBNs and SSGNs routinely come close to these countries and have even launched hostile actions against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in the case of Afghanistan, over Pak airspace without asking for permission. Not one person in Pakistan knew about it until they watched CNN.

Remember when clinton striked on Bin Laden's bases? Pak found out and raised the issue! We do have radars u know, and don't rely on horse scouts for our information.

My main issue with this is, that soon they'd figure out that ICBMs keep missing and they need nukes to do the job. Perhaps at that time they'd be arguing for small nukes which aren't SO bad.

An army with precision bombs and cruise missiles does not need to stoop to this. I see this as a prelude to asking congress for the use of nukes to hit on terrorist targets.

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 14:50
A shot from Nevada to the deserts of the middle east... hmmm tell me how accurate would these be? Can they hit a small building 10,000km away?


Considering the area of effect of a KE penetrator 'armed' ICBM, absolutely.


A missile flying into Pak won't be detected by radars? A few Shaheens which are already pointed towards India won't be triggered? Why do India and Pak pre-inform each other before each test?

There is a reason that all nuclear armed nations operate on a principal of LOC instead of LOW, pakistan included.


You do know India and Pakistan are more concerned with each other, they might do something to each other! If the US does introduce ICBMs into the scenario, that'll be the final push needed for India's Agni III and Pakistan's equivalent, as well.

That would actually tickle us pink. :tongue:


My main issue with this is, that soon they'd figure out that ICBMs keep missing and they need nukes to do the job. Perhaps at that time they'd be arguing for small nukes which aren't SO bad.

You really know absolutely nothing about this issue.

Let me summarize for you: You're completely wrong in your assessments.


An army with precision bombs and cruise missiles does not need to stoop to this. I see this as a prelude to asking congress for the use of nukes to hit on terrorist targets.

Which would also be fine by me, though sadly, it is obviously not the case here.

Asim Aquil
03 Jun 06,, 15:08
Considering the area of effect of a KE penetrator 'armed' ICBM, absolutely.

Link/more info? I just know basics, so I didn't quite get the kind of weapon you're talking about.


There is a reason that all nuclear armed nations operate on a principal of LOC instead of LOW, pakistan included.

As much as I think LOW is just as much as a level of madness but its the hard truth. You're just betting on the fact that Pakistan won't know for the next 10 hours that a strike has occurred. Rest assured, AS SOON AS a warning is there, there'd be a launch on India!

Heck India has better radars and might just launch first onto Pakistan.


That would actually tickle us pink.

For once, think international and not just national. It's quite sad to see some individuals would rejoice in seeing others battle.


You really know absolutely nothing about this issue.

Let me summarize for you: You're completely wrong in your assessments.


really?


Which would also be fine by me, though sadly, it is obviously not the case here.
I rest my case, with an example of classic war mongery.

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 15:14
Link/more info? I just know basics, so I didn't quite get the kind of weapon you're talking about.

Perhaps you should try page 1 of this thread.


As much as I think LOW is just as much as a level of madness but its the hard truth. You're just betting on the fact that Pakistan won't know for the next 10 hours that a strike has occurred. Rest assured, AS SOON AS a warning is there, there'd be a launch on India!

No there wouldn't, or there would've already been numerous exchanges.

LOW is madness. No one- NO ONE- practices LOW operationally. Hell, Pakistani warheads aren't even ACCESIBLE to the shooters. They have to be brought to them.


Heck India has better radars and might just launch first onto Pakistan.

India is also a practitioner of LOC.

Sorry dude.


really?


I rest my case, with an example of classic war mongery.

Sorry man. I'm sick of your country supporting terrorists in it's own borders. We're not gonna nuke you, we won't even invade cause our pols are pussies.

But if India nukes you.....that would be just fine by me.

Asim Aquil
03 Jun 06,, 15:26
Perhaps you should try page 1 of this thread.
Googling. Bigger warhead, does not mean accuracy. Trust me, you'd be blowing up villages.[/quote]


No there wouldn't, or there would've already been numerous exchanges.

Nuclear safegaurds are a whole bunch of crap, right?


India is also a practitioner of LOC.

Sorry dude.
As a policy? or just by circumstances without the state of the art equipment to detect the launch in nevada?

If they detect it, they won't wait for the nuke to land somewhere, if it can hit India, they'd launch one.


Sorry man. I'm sick of your country supporting terrorists in it's own borders
We're all sick of each other, doesn't drive me to murder!


We're not gonna nuke you, we won't even invade cause our pols are pussies.

But if India nukes you.....that would be just fine by me.

Pussies and Assholes, hmmm remember South Park? Only a few thing we can do with pussies.

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 15:39
Googling. Bigger warhead, does not mean accuracy. Trust me, you'd be blowing up villages.

You're an idiot. Trust me.

Just read page one of this thread silly boy. You can see there that the area of effect of a KE ICBM would be FAR greater than it's CEP. I do the math for you and all...


Nuclear safegaurds are a whole bunch of crap, right?

Um, no.




As a policy? or just by circumstances without the state of the art equipment to detect the launch in nevada?

If they detect it, they won't wait for the nuke to land somewhere, if it can hit India, they'd launch one.

Wrong. On all levels, in every assumption made in that paragraph...wrong.

I mean i can vector you onto Stuart Slade if you want a verifiable nuclear arms expert to tell you so, but he won't be as polite as me.



We're all sick of each other, doesn't drive me to murder!

To the contrary, it drives your nation to murder on a daily basis in Kashmir.


Pussies and Assholes, hmmm remember South Park? Only a few thing we can do with pussies.

They are pusssies. Not cause they're afraid of us losing, but because they're afriad of losing themselves....ie, their cushy seats.

Just be glad i'm not emperor of the US for the day.

If i was, India would be having a lot of room to expand......in about 100 years when the land is safe to occupy.

HistoricalDavid
03 Jun 06,, 16:16
I sense

With what, your sixth sense?


the use of nuclear warheads as a gradual eventuality that'll follow.

Platinum already implied the same with no evidence or reason whatsoever.

platinum786
03 Jun 06,, 16:22
With what, your sixth sense?



Platinum already implied the same with no evidence or reason whatsoever.

It's called common sense, not a sixth sense, that was a poor quality movie.

platinum786
03 Jun 06,, 16:23
If i was, India would be having a lot of room to expand......in about 100 years when the land is safe to occupy.

Well if iwas emperor fora day we'd all be discussing this in hell...

HistoricalDavid
03 Jun 06,, 16:24
It's called common sense, not a sixth sense, that was a poor quality movie.

Illustrate to me how it's 'common' sense.

I repeat, no solid reason or evidence has been provided, despite the fact that I (and others) have previously asked.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jun 06,, 18:07
A missile flying into Pak won't be detected by radars? A few Shaheens which are already pointed towards India won't be triggered? Why do India and Pak pre-inform each other before each test?

1) Your radars are looking the wrong way
2) You don't have an early warning system
3) You don't have an early warning procedure
4) The SHAHEENs are HE armed.
5) We have no evidence that the Paks had mated a nuke to their missiles. All speculations are that Pak nukes are aircraft delievered.
6) Nukes are stored in another location away from their delivery systems.
7) If you can't tell the difference between an HE/KE impact and a nuke impact, then you should go back to China for more lessons.


You do know India and Pakistan are more concerned with each other, they might do something to each other! If the US does introduce ICBMs into the scenario, that'll be the final push needed for India's Agni III and Pakistan's equivalent, as well.

So? Neither country is developing an 8000km system. That's the range you need to hit the US.


Remember when clinton striked on Bin Laden's bases? Pak found out and raised the issue! We do have radars u know, and don't rely on horse scouts for our information.

No, you've relied on CNN.


My main issue with this is, that soon they'd figure out that ICBMs keep missing and they need nukes to do the job. Perhaps at that time they'd be arguing for small nukes which aren't SO bad.

The US did not nuke Tora Bora. The rage has passed.


An army with precision bombs and cruise missiles does not need to stoop to this. I see this as a prelude to asking congress for the use of nukes to hit on terrorist targets.

The President of the US does not need Congress permission to use nukes.

Asim Aquil
03 Jun 06,, 19:57
1) Your radars are looking the wrong way
2) You don't have an early warning system
3) You don't have an early warning procedure

Is being remedied... You don't have approval to use the ICBMs against terrorists either.


4) The SHAHEENs are HE armed.
It can be quickly fired and will make a boom.


5) We have no evidence that the Paks had mated a nuke to their missiles. All speculations are that Pak nukes are aircraft delievered.
Any evidence it didn't either? Nuke testing would fetch sanctions.


6) Nukes are stored in another location away from their delivery systems.

Many times at height of conflict they were armed and pointing if I remember correctly. It can easily be decided to do so again.


7) If you can't tell the difference between an HE/KE impact and a nuke impact, then you should go back to China for more lessons.


I'm civillian remember?


So? Neither country is developing an 8000km system. That's the range you need to hit the US.

Probably more. But you don't get that Pak won't be nuking America for a few missiles that explode on Pakistani tribal areas. The issue here as pointed out by Plat was that since Americans have a tendency of not forewarning before major attacks, an ICBM launch could be detected and mistaken for an Indian attack.

We WILL attack India for a missile you launch, we've kept that policy up for many years and the MAD situation has held off aggression from both ends. We don't expect a nuclear strike from you, unless you're arguing differently right now like the emperor.


The President of the US does not need Congress permission to use nukes.
Really? In all circumstances or when faced with imminent threat?

Asim Aquil
03 Jun 06,, 20:02
Sorry man. I'm sick of your country supporting terrorists in it's own borders. We're not gonna nuke you, we won't even invade cause our pols are pussies.

But if India nukes you.....that would be just fine by me.
You know if I told you some of my preconceived notions about you guys in America they'd tell me, "No what you talk about are a small minority, the lunatic fringe and do not form the mainstream thought in America".

I do not fight for a country that supports terrorists take some contentment in that, if that's what you truly seek.

HistoricalDavid
03 Jun 06,, 20:17
Is being remedied...

...I'm sure the US will hold its breath in anticipation.

As OoE said, not even China has these systems which can allow LoW.


You don't have approval to use the ICBMs against terrorists either.

Even with Mushy? Regardless, if solid intelligence is received that Osama bin Laden is at so-and-so remote location, the US might launch even without his approval if the situation is desperate enough.


It can be quickly fired and will make a boom.

...Welcome to mid-20th-century warfare.


Any evidence it didn't either? Nuke testing would fetch sanctions.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it is suggestive.


Many times at height of conflict they were armed and pointing if I remember correctly. It can easily be decided to do so again.

In the time it takes to do that, a pre-emptive strike might be mounted.


I'm civillian remember?

He's talking about the Pakistani military in general.


Probably more. But you don't get that Pak won't be nuking America for a few missiles that explode on Pakistani tribal areas. The issue here as pointed out by Plat was that since Americans have a tendency of not forewarning before major attacks, an ICBM launch could be detected and mistaken for an Indian attack.

Even though it's way off the coast and facing the wrong direction? An Ohio-class could be in the Mediterranean, eastern North Atlantic, eastern South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Western Indian Ocean...

The range of the Trident I is something like 4,500 miles and the Trident II, 7,500 miles.


We WILL attack India for a missile you launch, we've kept that policy up for many years and the MAD situation has held off aggression from both ends. We don't expect a nuclear strike from you, unless you're arguing differently right now like the emperor.

So if a SLBM hits a target in the Pakistani countryside, thus inflicting little collateral damage but killing or attempting to kill terrorists on solid intelligence, you'll still go to (potentially nuclear) war?


Really? In all circumstances or when faced with imminent threat?

...Part of the whole point of Cold War MAD was that both sides would be able to launch very, very quickly. Asking 100 senators or 435 Representatives permission to launch in the face of 40,000 Soviet nukes is a bit farcical.

He would need Congressional approval to develop and buy new weapon systems, such as an even more accurate KE warhead.

platinum786
03 Jun 06,, 20:57
My objections are these;

The CEP of a Trident 2 Missile is 120 metres, the CEP of a Tomohawk Cruise missile is 10 metres, the range of a Trident 2 missile is a maximum of 12,000km based upto the mixture of the payload and the size of it, the range of a Tomohawk cruise missile is 2500km. Both can be fired from Submarines places in international waters (in the arabian sea) and cover an area spanning from India to Israel.

What I want to know is why the submarines are being deployed with the less accurate missile rather than the more accurate one if the aim is to use non nuclear wearheads to take out small targets?

Some of you argue that you need a quick fire reaction, however both of those missiles have capable range of attacking anywhere and can be fired in an equal amount of time, if anything the Trident one probably would take longer to fire on the assumption that it's not so easy to fire a nuclear missile from a submarine compared to a Torpedo let's say.

Others argue that you need them for re-enforced targets, firstly it's unlikely that a reinforced target that cannot be taken out by a tomohawk cruise missile is noving very fast or going anywhere in fact, secondly, it's likely to be base where terrorsits shelter rather than a cafe they walked into, thirdly the USA of fighter jets stationed in the Arabian sea, in Pakistan on a small Island off the Coast of India I forget it's name, in Tajikistan in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where your so called terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden is. If it was nessacery you could deploy fighter jets armed with bunker busters designed specifally for this role in about the same time you'd fire a missile from a submarine, well yeah the missile would be a bit quiicker but much less likely to hit target compared to a fighter jet.

On top of all that, your intlligence is sh!t. Lastt ime you bombed a village and declared that people sleeping in thier beds where terrorists. Many a time you have bombed afghan weddings claiming you've come across Taliban fighters, in Iraq your amred forces have been slaughtereing innocent Iraqi Civillians, nobody held in guantanomo Bay has ever been charged, you have yet to find Osama Bin Laden, your intelligence agencies failed to detect 9-11 attacks, interesting in contrast, you found Saddam Hussain ina gutter within weeks of the invasion of Iraq.

HistoricalDavid
03 Jun 06,, 21:18
What I want to know is why the submarines are being deployed with the less accurate missile rather than the more accurate one if the aim is to use non nuclear wearheads to take out small targets?

The flight time is much, much lower.

The SLBMs, particularly if upgraded, are accurate enough to take out these sorts of targets even without


it's not so easy to fire a nuclear missile from a submarine compared to a Torpedo let's say.

During the Cold War, the Tridents had to be ready to fire within minutes. I doubt its increased complexity is enough offset the insanely quick flight time.


Others argue that you need them for re-enforced targets, firstly it's unlikely that a reinforced target that cannot be taken out by a tomohawk

...Tomahawks are not suitable for hardened target penetration, they have HE 1,000lb/1,500lb (I can never remember) warheads.


cruise missile is noving very fast

Tomahawks are subsonic. Tridents in their terminal re-entry phase reach something like Mach 20.


it's likely to be base where terrorsits shelter rather than a cafe they walked into,

Right. :confused:


thirdly the USA of fighter jets stationed in the Arabian sea, in Pakistan on a small Island off the Coast of India I forget it's name, in Tajikistan in Iraq and in Afghanistan,

Not to mention carriers.

By the way, you sound like Borat.

"the USA of fighter jets" :tongue:


where your so called terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden is.

What is he? A friendly little chappy?


If it was nessacery you could deploy fighter jets armed with bunker busters

5,000lb Bunker-busters deployed from fighter jets cannot match the penetrative capabilities of a 1,000lb KE warhead going Mach 20.

Bunker-busters deployed from strategic bombers (e.g. the 30,000lb Big BLU) might but obviously they have a snail-pace response time, unless the bombers are kept on constant patrol.


designed specifally for this role in about the same time you'd fire a missile from a submarine, well yeah the missile would be a bit quiicker but much less likely to hit target compared to a fighter jet.

Er... on what do you base this? The Trident, like all ballistic missiles has an EXTREMELY quick flight time.

And modern ICBMs/SLBMs are surprisingly accurate.

The LGM-118 Peacekeeper had a CEP of 30m, I believe, and could travel something like 8,000 miles.


On top of all that, your intlligence is sh!t. Lastt ime you bombed a village and declared that people sleeping in thier beds where terrorists. Many a time you have bombed afghan weddings claiming you've come across Taliban fighters, in Iraq your amred forces have been slaughtereing innocent Iraqi Civillians, nobody held in guantanomo Bay has ever been charged, you have yet to find Osama Bin Laden, your intelligence agencies failed to detect 9-11 attacks, interesting in contrast, you found Saddam Hussain ina gutter within weeks of the invasion of Iraq.

...I'm waiting for a demonstation of the intelligence capabilities which you consider amazing.

The intelligence for a SLBM strike (i.e. costing in excess of $50 million per shot) isn't going to be poor.

PS The Tomahawks in service now can't reach 2,500km in range, more like 1,600km.

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 21:31
Well if iwas emperor fora day we'd all be discussing this in hell...

At least then we'd all have something in common. :biggrin:

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 21:32
You know if I told you some of my preconceived notions about you guys in America they'd tell me, "No what you talk about are a small minority, the lunatic fringe and do not form the mainstream thought in America".

I do not fight for a country that supports terrorists take some contentment in that, if that's what you truly seek.

I probably am in the lunatic fringe. All soldiers probably are.

It takes a lunatic to volunteer for the infantry to begin with.

LOL...

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 21:37
We WILL attack India for a missile you launch, we've kept that policy up for many years and the MAD situation has held off aggression from both ends. We don't expect a nuclear strike from you, unless you're arguing differently right now like the emperor.

Your planes and missiles are not armed with nukes. They're stored separately, some assembly required.

From what i have been told by Stuart Slade both Pakistan AND India have extraordinary control mechanisims in place to prevent ANY unauthorized access, so those warheads are watched VERY close and kept under lock and key.

Well, that's what the intel says. And it makes perfect sense.

Cause LOW is INSANITY, and would've already resulted in numerous nuke wars if that was ANYONE'S policy.

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 22:38
The CEP of a Trident 2 Missile is 120 metres, the CEP of a Tomohawk Cruise missile is 10 metres, the range of a Trident 2 missile is a maximum of 12,000km based upto the mixture of the payload and the size of it, the range of a Tomohawk cruise missile is 2500km. Both can be fired from Submarines places in international waters (in the arabian sea) and cover an area spanning from India to Israel.

Trident II D-5 SLBM

Range: 12,000km
Speed(max): 18,000mph(29.0kps)
Mass: 130000lbs(58,500kg)
Throw weight: 6170lbs (2800kg)
CEP: 90 meters
Unit cost: $31M USD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile

Parihaka
03 Jun 06,, 22:42
Unit cost: $31M USD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile
That's as cheap as chips! Maybe I should start a campaign to get some for dear old Aoteroa, and give those Aussies a thrashing....

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 22:47
That unit cost is sans warheads i think, lol.

Archer
03 Jun 06,, 23:09
You know if I told you some of my preconceived notions about you guys in America they'd tell me, "No what you talk about are a small minority, the lunatic fringe and do not form the mainstream thought in America".

I do not fight for a country that supports terrorists take some contentment in that, if that's what you truly seek.

You are welcome to. I can also assure that the Indian Army would deal with you nonetheless.

Archer
03 Jun 06,, 23:13
On top of all that, your intlligence is sh!t. Lastt ime you bombed a village and declared that people sleeping in thier beds where terrorists. Many a time you have bombed afghan weddings claiming you've come across Taliban fighters, in Iraq your amred forces have been slaughtereing innocent Iraqi Civillians, nobody held in guantanomo Bay has ever been charged, you have yet to find Osama Bin Laden, your intelligence agencies failed to detect 9-11 attacks, interesting in contrast, you found Saddam Hussain ina gutter within weeks of the invasion of Iraq.

Heck, compared to the sh!te the Pak military junta and the ISI do, the CIA are peanuts. Everything that you blame the US for, the Islamists in the Pak military, intelligence agencies - have done far, far worse. And the US found Saddam Hussein, because he was not being actively protected to the extent OBL is in Pak.

The CIA may make mistakes. But at least their intentions are good, something which most definitely cannot be said of the ISI and the jihadis whom they love.

Archer
03 Jun 06,, 23:18
I probably am in the lunatic fringe. All soldiers probably are.

It takes a lunatic to volunteer for the infantry to begin with.
LOL...

:biggrin:*

*Starship troopers, Mech infantry?

Bill
03 Jun 06,, 23:48
:biggrin:*

*Starship troopers, Mech infantry?

"Fleet does the flying, MI does the dying...ROUGHNECKS HO!"
~Rico.

LOL, i actually saw that movie the other week for just the second time.

Someone forgot to tell them to bring the tanks and APCs or something? And where was the artillery? Or the orbital bombardment?

LOL.......They forgot how to fight in the future i guess. :confused:

Officer of Engineers
03 Jun 06,, 23:53
Is being remedied... You don't have approval to use the ICBMs against terrorists either.

1) It is not being remedied. You're not launching satellites. You're not watching ALL of your sky. What few radars you're installing is pointing to specific Indian flight paths and not even all of them.

The US does not need approval from anyone to launch ICBMs.


It can be quickly fired and will make a boom.

With HE, not nukes.


Any evidence it didn't either? Nuke testing would fetch sanctions.

You cannot prove a negative.


Many times at height of conflict they were armed and pointing if I remember correctly. It can easily be decided to do so again.

That was the propaganda. A careful analysis of each crisis showed that at no time were nukes ever seriously considered by either side.


I'm civillian remember?

Then listen to the military guys here on the proper procedures.


Probably more. But you don't get that Pak won't be nuking America for a few missiles that explode on Pakistani tribal areas. The issue here as pointed out by Plat was that since Americans have a tendency of not forewarning before major attacks, an ICBM launch could be detected and mistaken for an Indian attack.

How many times do I have to tell you? Pakistan CANNOT detect an ICBM launch. Pakistan cannot even detect an RV entering its airspace. About the only time you will detect anything is when something goes "BOOM!"

Hell, you're not even set up to watch India. You don't have a line of over-the-horizon radars watching the skies. You don't have a communication system set up between detection and launch authority. You don't have any satellite up anywhere watching India. You're not even spending the money to buy radars. You're not buying satellites from China.


We WILL attack India for a missile you launch, we've kept that policy up for many years and the MAD situation has held off aggression from both ends. We don't expect a nuclear strike from you, unless you're arguing differently right now like the emperor.

1) You're not going to lauch within minutes. It will take at least 24 hours to move and mount the warheads to the delivery vehicles.

2) In that time, if you can't confirm who and what hit you, then you're really bad.


Really? In all circumstances or when faced with imminent threat?

The Nuclear Release Authority is Class Protected but suffice to say that the President can push the button anytime he wants.

Bill
04 Jun 06,, 00:35
With HE, not nukes

Sir, the conventionally 'armed' SLBM/ICBMs are not 'armed' at all. They do not have any explosive payload at all, as that would actually REDUCE the destructive power of the weapon.

These weapons rely on pure KE to do their damage, so using volumetrically less dense explosive filler would actually reduce the total yield of the weapon.

The idea is to get as big a chunk of metal as you can and have it hit the ground as fast as is technologically possible.

Like a guided meteor sportin' an American flag. :biggrin:

Parihaka
04 Jun 06,, 00:39
Sir, the conventionally 'armed' SLBM/ICBMs are not 'armed' at all. They do not have any explosive payload at all, as that would actually REDUCE the destructive power of the weapon.

These weapons rely on pure KE to do their damage, so using volumetrically less dense explosive filler would actually reduce the total yield of the weapon.

The idea is to get as big a chunk of metal as you can and have it hit the ground as fast as is technologically possible.

Like a guided meteor sportin' an American flag. :biggrin:
So I wouldn't need to buy a warhead then :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
04 Jun 06,, 00:40
Sir, the conventionally 'armed' SLBM/ICBMs are not 'armed' at all. They do not have any explosive payload at all, as that would actually REDUCE the destructive power of the weapon.

...

Like a guided meteor sportin' an American flag. :biggrin:

I was actually speaking about the SHAHEENs being HE armed but I truly like the idea of a big rock.

platinum786
04 Jun 06,, 00:41
Heck, compared to the sh!te the Pak military junta and the ISI do, the CIA are peanuts. Everything that you blame the US for, the Islamists in the Pak military, intelligence agencies - have done far, far worse. And the US found Saddam Hussein, because he was not being actively protected to the extent OBL is in Pak.

The CIA may make mistakes. But at least their intentions are good, something which most definitely cannot be said of the ISI and the jihadis whom they love.

unless you can rpove anything with evidence rather than accusation shut the f u c k up. Who the hell are you to talk? Your soldiers are busy fighting rats and your intelligence agencies didn'y notice militants charging your houses of Parliment, your all so stupid wouldn't know someone had fu ck ed you until you have birthm take a look at this... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5044436.stm

The last time we went down this road son it wasn't pretty, you want to go down it again, bring it you see what happens, but be warned, your army fighting rats is just the start of it... :eek:

Bill
04 Jun 06,, 00:41
So I wouldn't need to buy a warhead then :biggrin:

No, but you would have to spend 100s of millions designing the purpose built KE-RV. ;)

Parihaka
04 Jun 06,, 00:51
No, but you would have to spend 100s of millions designing the purpose built KE-RV. ;)
How difficult would it be to design a heavily compressed block of sheep-sh:t :confused:

Confed999
04 Jun 06,, 01:03
unless you can rpove anything with evidence rather than accusation shut the f u c k up. Who the hell are you to talk?
LOL! Can say that about all of your overwhelmingly incorrect posts in this very thread too! :tongue:

Bill
04 Jun 06,, 01:57
I was actually speaking about the SHAHEENs being HE armed but I truly like the idea of a big rock.

Whoops....my appologies sir.

platinum786
04 Jun 06,, 15:38
So we all agree that i'm right and your wrong, yes... :tongue:

JBodnar39
04 Jun 06,, 15:53
On top of all that, your intlligence is sh!t. Lastt ime you bombed a village and declared that people sleeping in thier beds where terrorists. Many a time you have bombed afghan weddings claiming you've come across Taliban fighters, in Iraq your amred forces have been slaughtereing innocent Iraqi Civillians, nobody held in guantanomo Bay has ever been charged, you have yet to find Osama Bin Laden, your intelligence agencies failed to detect 9-11 attacks, interesting in contrast, you found Saddam Hussain ina gutter within weeks of the invasion of Iraq.[/QUOTE]


You are regurgitating ignorant propoganda. "Many a time you have bombed afghan weddings" that happened ONCE not many times, and that was because terrorists had been invited to the wedding;

"In Iraq your armed forces have been slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians" In each an every case where there has been accusations of US troops killing civilians, the incident was investigated and appropriate actions were taken based upon concrete evidence, not hysterical assumptions. Never in the history of combat has any military taken as great care as the US has to avoid civilian casualties. Gees the Iraqi's and terrorists we have fought over there don't even aim their rifles.

HistoricalDavid
04 Jun 06,, 15:54
So we all agree that i'm right and your wrong, yes... :tongue:

...Keep deluding yourself.

You haven't even answered half the points made against you.

Archer
04 Jun 06,, 16:20
unless you can rpove anything with evidence rather than accusation shut the f u c k up.

I already posted multiple links citing the evidence. Getting a wedgie and shrieking expletives only works in the schoolground, mate.

Go back, and look at the multiple sources categorically speaking of Pakistans terrorism apparatus.


Who the hell are you to talk?

:rolleyes:


Your soldiers are busy fighting rats

I know. Glad to see you admitting it.


and your intelligence agencies didn'y notice militants charging your houses of Parliment,

Yup, unlike the Intelligence agency which sent those glorious jihadis.


your all so stupid wouldn't know someone had fu ck ed you until you have birthm take a look at this... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5044436.stm

Well at least these are not terrorist rats. Thank you for your offer, but I dont swing both ways.


The last time we went down this road son it wasn't pretty, you want to go down it again, bring it you see what happens, but be warned, your army fighting rats is just the start of it... :eek:

Given that your posting style is that of a volatile pubescent, I can but laugh at your braggadacio, your general behaviour & hypocrisy and as regards your threats, I am confident that the Admins can deal with you and your spamming.

Archer
04 Jun 06,, 16:21
To Platinum 786:You are regurgitating ignorant propoganda.

Well, what else is new.

In the meanwhile, Jihadis still alive and Kicking

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=227945&postcount=48

troung
05 Jun 06,, 03:47
We WILL attack India for a missile you launch, we've kept that policy up for many years and the MAD situation has held off aggression from both ends.

And?


On top of all that, your intlligence is sh!t. Lastt ime you bombed a village and declared that people sleeping in thier beds where terrorists. Many a time you have bombed afghan weddings claiming you've come across Taliban fighters, in Iraq your amred forces have been slaughtereing innocent Iraqi Civillians, nobody held in guantanomo Bay has ever been charged, you have yet to find Osama Bin Laden, your intelligence agencies failed to detect 9-11 attacks, interesting in contrast, you found Saddam Hussain ina gutter within weeks of the invasion of Iraq.

And?

platinum786
05 Jun 06,, 09:31
look we all already agreed that i was right....what is there to discuss now? :mad: :tongue:

After much considreation i feel the nuclearization of the region arguement might be weak, considering all in all that you have done that already and the level of escalation would be low, but my other arguements remain valid...

It could trigger a nuclear exchange and your intelligence is too weak to be trusted to use a weapon of that size for quick fire delpoyment.

Officer of Engineers
05 Jun 06,, 09:33
It could trigger a nuclear exchange and your intelligence is too weak to be trusted to use a weapon of that size for quick fire delpoyment.

How? As stated, it would take 24 hours for you to move and mount a warhead onto a delivery vehicle. In that time, if you can't tell what and who hit you, then your intel and eval is far weaker than you give the CIA.

platinum786
05 Jun 06,, 10:01
but how do u know it'd take 24 hours to get the nukes onto the missiles, that may well just be a bluff....

platinum786
05 Jun 06,, 10:02
btw....there is also the distinct possibility that there are people within intelligence agencies who are even more incompetent than the CIA....probably a signficant probability if you ever read the topics about the ex isi chief that talks rubbish all the time...

HistoricalDavid
05 Jun 06,, 11:08
look we all already agreed that i was right....what is there to discuss now? :mad: :tongue:

Ha, a bona fide troll.


After much considreation i feel the nuclearization of the region arguement might be weak,

More like, non-existent.


It could trigger a nuclear exchange

Already been refuted, and you haven't even answered half the points made against you.


and your intelligence is too weak to be trusted to use a weapon of that size for quick fire delpoyment.

What do you know about American intelligence apart from what you read in the media? None of us know their true capabilities unless we're in the CIA or NSA, but it stands to reason that the use of a $31 million missile (at least that much) is going to have much better intelligence than a pair of Hellfires fired from a Predator.

platinum786
05 Jun 06,, 11:20
but it stands to reason that the use of a $31 million missile (at least that much) is going to have much better intelligence than a pair of Hellfires fired from a Predator.

you'd think that wouldn't you, but when ratings dip in the polls, a few $31 million dollar missiles fired at poor villages in the third world whilst waving the stars and strtripes declaring victory can do a huge favour for you....

HistoricalDavid
05 Jun 06,, 11:44
you'd think that wouldn't you, but when ratings dip in the polls, a few $31 million dollar missiles fired at poor villages in the third world whilst waving the stars and strtripes declaring victory can do a huge favour for you....

And can backfire spectacularly when CNN or the New York Times reveals that you spent a tidy sum in a single engagement to kill some villagers.

And by the way.


...you haven't even answered half the points made against you.

Archer
05 Jun 06,, 12:20
Do you think he can? Better to wave the usual propoganda shtick about innocent villagers (who just happen to be in cahoots with the Talibunnies).

Officer of Engineers
05 Jun 06,, 13:28
but how do u know it'd take 24 hours to get the nukes onto the missiles, that may well just be a bluff....

Because Chinese exercises took them that long and you ain't better than the Chinese.


btw....there is also the distinct possibility that there are people within intelligence agencies who are even more incompetent than the CIA....probably a signficant probability if you ever read the topics about the ex isi chief that talks rubbish all the time...

Then you have bigger problems than worry what might be.